Is the Internal Revenue
Service (“IRS”) an organization within the U.S. Department
of the Treasury?

Answer:No.The IRS is not an organization within the
United States Department of the Treasury.The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by
statutes now codified in
Title 31 of
the United States Code, abbreviated “31 U.S.C.”The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C.
§§ 301‑310 is an authorization for the
President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S.
Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS.See
31 U.S.C.
301(f)(2).

At footnote 23
in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979),
the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS
could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way
back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D.The
Guarantee Clause in the
U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all
Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary
bureaucrats).See
Article IV, Section 4.Since there was
no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.

Answer:The
IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks
and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal
Alcohol Administration (“FAA”).But the FAA
was promptly declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by
the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine,
296 U.S. 287 (1935),
because
Prohibition had already been repealed.

In 1998, the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit identified a second “Secretary
of the Treasury” as a man by the name of Manual
Díaz-Saldaña.
See the definitions of “Secretary”
and “Secretary
or his delegate” at
27 CFR
26.11 (formerly 27 CFR 250.11), and the published decision
in Used Tire International, Inc. v. Manual
Díaz-Saldaña, court docket
number
97‑2348, September 11, 1998.Both
definitions mention Puerto Rico.

When all the evidence is examined
objectively, IRS appears to be a money laundry, extortion
racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering
activity, in violation of
18
U.S.C. 1951 and
1961et seq. (“RICO”).Think of
Puerto RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act);in
other words, it is an organized crime syndicate operating under
false and fraudulent pretenses.See also the
Sherman
Act and the
Lanham
Act.

3.By
what legal authority, if any, has the IRS established offices
inside the 50 States of the Union?

Answer:After
much diligent research, several investigators have concluded
that there is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order,
giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within any of
the 50 States of the Union.

Their presence within the 50
States appears to stem from certain Agreements on Coordination
of Tax Administration (“ACTA”),
which officials in those States have consummated with the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.A
template for ACTA agreements can be found at the IRS
Internet website and in the
Supreme Law
Library on the Internet.

However, those ACTA agreements are
demonstrably fraudulent, for example, by expressly defining
“IRS” as a lawful bureau within the U.S. Department of the
Treasury.(See Answer to
Question 1 above.)Moreover,
those
ACTA agreements also appear to violate State laws requiring
competitive bidding before such a service contract can be
awarded by a State government to any subcontractor.There is no evidence to indicate that
ACTA
agreements were reached after competitive bidding processes;on the contrary, the IRS is adamant about
maintaining a monopoly syndicate.

4.Can
IRS legally show “Department of the Treasury” on their outgoing
mail?

Answer:No.It is obvious that such deceptive nomenclature is
intended to convey the false impression that IRS is a lawful
bureau or department within the
U.S. Department of the Treasury.Federal
laws prohibit the use of United States Mail for fraudulent
purposes.Every piece of U.S. Mail sent from
IRS with “Department of the Treasury” in the return address, is
one count of
mail
fraud.See also
31
U.S.C. 333.

5.Does
the U.S. Department of Justice have power of attorney to
represent the IRS in federal court?

Since IRS is domiciled in
Puerto Rico (RICO?), it is thereby excluded from the
definition of federal agencies which can be represented by the
DOJ.The IRS Chief Counsel, appointed by the
President under authority of
31 U.S.C.
301(f)(2), can appear, or appoint
a delegate to appear in federal court on behalf of IRS and IRS
employees.Again, see the Answer to
Question 1 above.As far as powers of
attorney are concerned, the chain of command begins with
Congress, flows to the President, and then to the IRS Chief
Counsel, and NOT to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Answer:No.Neither was properly ratified.In the
case of People v. Boxer (December
1992), docket number #S-030016, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer
fell totally silent in the face of an
Application to the California Supreme Court by the People of
California, for an ORDER compelling Senator Boxer to witness the
material evidence against the so-called
16th amendment.

That so‑called “amendment”
allegedly authorized federal income taxation, even though it
contains no provision expressly repealing two Constitutional
Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme
Court have both
ruled that repeals by implication are not favored.See Crawford Fitting Co. et al.
v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987).

The material evidence in question
was summarized in AFFIDAVIT’s that
were properly executed and filed in that case.Boxer fell totally silent, thus rendering those
affidavits the “truth of the case.”The
so‑called
16th amendment has now been correctly identified
as a
major fraud upon the American People and the United States.Major fraud against the United States is a serious
federal offense.See
18
U.S.C. 1031.

Similarly, the so-called
14th amendment was never properly ratified
either.In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d266, 270 (1968),
the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts
proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so‑called
14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon
the American People.

Those facts, in many cases, were
Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against
that proposal to amend the
U.S. Constitution.The Supreme Law
Library has a
collection of references detailing this major fraud.

Judging by the sheer amount of
litigation its various sections have generated, particularly
Section 1, the so‑called
14th amendment is one of the worst pieces
of legislation ever written in American history.The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal
jurisdiction of Congress.”(See Answer to
Question 19 below.)

7.Where
are the statutes that create a specific liability for
federal income taxes?

Answer:Section 1
of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) contains no provisions
creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by
subtitle
A.Aside from the statutes which apply
only to federal government employees, pursuant to the
Public Salary Tax Act, the only other statutes that
create a specific liability for federal income taxes are those
itemized in the definition of “Withholding agent” at IRC section
7701(a)(16).For example, see IRC section
1461.A separate liability statute for “employment” taxes
imposed by
subtitle
C is found at IRC section
3403.

After a worker authorizes a
payroll officer to withhold taxes, typically by completing Form
W‑4, the payroll officer then becomes a withholding agent who is
legally and specifically liable for payment of all taxes
withheld from that worker’s paycheck.Until
such time as those taxes are paid in full into the
Treasury of the United States, the withholding agent is the
only party who is legally liable for those taxes, not
the worker.See IRC section
7809
(“Treasury of the United States”).

If the worker opts instead to
complete a Withholding Exemption Certificate, consistent with
IRC section
3402(n),
the payroll officer is not thereby authorized to withhold any
federal income taxes.In this latter
situation, there is absolutely no liability for the worker or
for the payroll officer;
in other words, there is no liability PERIOD,
specifically because there is no withholding agent.

8.Can a
federal regulation create a specific liability, when no specific
liability is created by the corresponding statute?

Answer:No.The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative power
in the Congress of the United States.See
Article I, Section 1.The Executive
Branch of the federal government has no legislative power
whatsoever.This means that agencies of the
Executive Branch, and also the federal Courts in the Judicial
Branch, are prohibited from making law.

If an Act of Congress fails to
create a specific liability for any tax imposed by that Act,
then there is no liability for that tax.
Executive agencies have no authority to cure any such omission
by using regulations to create a liability.

“[A]n
administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or
any liability not sanctioned by the lawmaking
authority, especially a liability for a tax or
inspection fee.” See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, 80
S.Ct. 144 (1959),
and Independent Petroleum Corp. v. Fly, 141 F.2d 189 (5th
Cir. 1944) as cited at 2
Am
Jur 2d, p. 129, footnote 2 (1962
edition) [bold emphasis added]. However, this cite from
American Jurisprudence has been removed from the
1994 edition of that legal encyclopedia.

9.The
federal regulations create an income tax liability for what
specific classes of people?

Answer:The
regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1 attempted to create a specific
liability for all “citizens of the United States” and all
“residents of the United States”.However,
those regulations correspond to IRC
section 1,
which does not create a specific liability for taxes
imposed by
subtitle
A.

Therefore, these regulations are
an overly broad extension of the underlying statutory authority;
as such, they are unconstitutional, null and void
ab initio (from the
beginning, in Latin).The Acker case
cited above held that federal regulations can not exceed
the underlying statutory authority.(See Answer to
Question 8 above.)

10.How
many classes of citizens are there, and how did this
number come to be?

Answer:There
are two (2) classes of citizens:State
Citizens and federal citizens.The first
class originates in the
Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the
term “Citizen of the United States” is used.
(See
1:2:2,
1:3:3 and
2:1:5.)Notice the
UPPER-CASE “C” in “Citizen”.

The pertinent court cases have
defined the term “United States” in these Clauses to mean
“States United”, and the full term means “Citizen of
ONE OF the States United”.See People v. De La Guerra, 40
Cal. 311, 337 (1870); Judge Pablo De
La Guerra signed the California Constitution of 1849, when
California first joined the Union. Similar terms are
found in the Diversity Clause at
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and in the Privileges and
Immunities Clause at
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.Prior
to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under
American Law.See the holding in
Pannill v. Roanoke,
252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), for definitive authority on
this key point.

The second class originates in the
1866
Civil Rights Act, where the term “citizen of the United
States” is used.This Act was later codified
at 42
U.S.C. 1983.Notice the lower-case “c”
in “citizen”.The pertinent court cases have
held that Congress thereby created a
municipal franchise primarily for members of the Negro
race, who were freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation
Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the
Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary
servitude.Compelling payment of a “tax” for
which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary
servitude, and extortion.

Instead of using the unique term
“federal citizen”, as found in Black’s Law Dictionary,
Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the Radical Republicans who
sponsored the
1866
Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two
classes of citizens.Then, they attempted to
elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing
a
14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.As we now know, that proposal was never ratified.(See Answer to
Question 6 above.)

Numerous court cases have
struggled to clarify the important differences between the
two
classes.One of the most definitive, and
dispositive cases, is
Pannill v. Roanoke,
252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), which clearly held that
federal citizens had no standing to sue under the
Diversity Clause, because they were not even contemplated
when Article III in the U.S. Constitution was first being
drafted, circa 1787 A.D.

Another is
Ex parte Knowles,
5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court ruled
that there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States”
(as of the year 1855 A.D.).Only
federal citizens have standing to invoke
42
U.S.C. 1983;whereas
State Citizens do not.See
Wadleigh v. Newhall,
136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905).

Many more cases can be cited to
confirm the existence of two classes of citizens under American
Law.These cases are thoroughly documented
in the book entitled “The
Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue”
by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., now in its eleventh
edition.See also the pleadings in the case
of USA
v. Gilbertson, also in the Supreme Law Library.

11.Can
one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal
citizen?

Answer:Yes.The
1866
Civil Rights Act was
municipal law, confined to the District of Columbia and
other limited areas where Congress is the “state” government
with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there.These areas are now identified as “the federal zone.”(Think of it as the blue field on the American flag;the stars on the flag are the 50 States.)As such, the
1866
Civil Rights Act had no effect
whatsoever upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then or
now.

Several courts have already
recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming
federal citizens.For excellent examples,
see State v. Fowler, 41
La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889)
and Gardina v. Board of
Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909).
The Maine Supreme Court also clarified the issue by
explaining our “Right
of Election” or “freedom of choice,” namely, our freedom to
choose between two different forms of government.See 44 Maine 518 (1859),
Hathaway, J. dissenting.

Since the
Guarantee Clause does not require the federal government to
guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the federal zone,
Congress is free to create a different form of government
there, and so it has.In his dissenting
opinion in Downes v.
Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901),
Supreme Court Justice Harlan called it an absolute legislative
democracy.

But, State Citizens are under no
legal obligation to join or pledge any allegiance to that
legislative democracy;
their allegiance is to one or more of the several States
of the Union (i.e. the white stars on the American flag,
not the blue field).

12.Who
was Frank Brushaber, and why was his
U.S. Supreme Court case so important?

Answer:Frank
Brushaber was the Plaintiff in the
case of Brushaber v. Union
Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916),
the first U.S. Supreme Court case to consider the so‑called
16th amendment.Brushaber identified himself as a
Citizen of New York State and a resident of the Borough of
Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and nobody challenged that
claim.

The Union Pacific Railroad Company
was a federal corporation created by Act of Congress to build a
railroad through Utah (from the Union to the Pacific), at a time
when Utah was a federal Territory, i.e. inside the
federal zone.

Brushaber’s
attorney committed an error by arguing that the company had been
chartered by the State of Utah, but Utah was not a State
of the Union when Congress first created that corporation.

Brushaber
had purchased stock issued by the company.
He then sued the company to recover taxes that Congress had
imposed upon the dividends paid to its stockholders.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Frank
Brushaber, and upheld the tax as a
lawful excise, or indirect tax.

The most interesting result of the
Court’s ruling was a Treasury Decision (“T.D.”) that the U.S.
Department of the Treasury later issued as a direct consequence
of the high Court’s opinion.In
T.D. 2313, the U.S. Treasury Department expressly cited the
Brushaber decision, and it
identified Frank Brushaber as a
“nonresident alien” and the Union Pacific Railroad Company as a
“domestic corporation”.This Treasury
Decision has never been modified or repealed.

T.D. 2313 is crucial evidence proving that the income tax
provisions of the IRC are
municipal
law, with no territorial jurisdiction inside the 50 States
of the Union.The U.S. Secretary of the
Treasury who approved
T.D. 2313 had no authority to extend the holding in the
Brushaber case to anyone or
anything not a proper Party to that court action.

Thus, there is no escaping the
conclusion that Frank Brushaber was
the nonresident alien to which that Treasury Decision refers.Accordingly, all State Citizens are nonresident aliens
with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress, i.e.
the federal zone.

13.What
is a “Withholding agent”?

Answer:(See
Answer to
Question 7 first.)The term “Withholding
agent” is legally defined at IRC section
7701(a)(16).It is further defined by the statutes itemized in that
section, e.g.IRC
1461 where liability for funds withheld is clearly assigned.In plain English, a “withholding agent” is a person who
is responsible for withholding taxes from a worker’s paycheck,
and then paying those taxes into the Treasury of the United
States, typically on a quarterly basis.See
IRC section
7809.

One cannot become a withholding
agent unless workers first authorize taxes to be withheld from
their paychecks.This authorization is
typically done when workers opt to execute a valid W‑4
“Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate.”In plain English, by signing a W‑4
workers designate themselves as “employees” and certify
they are allowing withholding to occur.

If workers do not execute a
valid W‑4 form, a company’s payroll officer is not authorized to
withhold any federal income taxes from their paychecks.In other words, the payroll officer does not have
“permission” or “power of attorney” to withhold taxes, until and
unless workers authorize or “allow” that withholding ‑‑ by
signing Form W‑4 knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily

Pay particular attention to the
term “Employee” in the title of this form.A
properly executed Form W‑4 creates the presumption that the
workers wish to be treated as if they were “employees” of
the federal government.Obviously, for
people who do not work for the federal government, such a
presumption is a legal fiction, at best.

14.What
is a “Withholding Exemption Certificate”?

Answer:A
“Withholding Exemption Certificate” is an alternative to Form
W‑4, authorized by IRC section
3402(n)
and executed in lieu of Form W‑4.
Although section
3402(n)
does authorize this Certificate, the IRS has never added a
corresponding form to its forms catalog (see the IRS “Printed
Products Catalog”).

In the absence of an official IRS
form, workers can use the language of section
3402(n)
to create their own Certificates.In simple
language, the worker certifies that s/he had no federal income
tax liability last year, and anticipates no federal income tax
liability during the current calendar year.
Because there are no liability statutes for workers in the
private sector, this certification is easy to justify.

Many public and private
institutions have created their own form for the Withholding
Exemption Certificate, e.g. California Franchise Tax
Board, and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.This fact can be confirmed by using any search engine,
e.g.google.com, to
locate occurrences of the term “withholding exemption
certificate” on the Internet.This term
occurs several times in IRC section
3402.

15.What
is “tax evasion” and who might be guilty of this crime?

Answer:“Tax
evasion” is the crime of evading a lawful tax.In the context of federal income taxes, this crime can
only be committed by persons who have a legal liability
to pay, i.e. the withholding agent.
If one is not employed by the federal government, one is not
subject to the Public Salary Tax Act unless one chooses to be
treated “as if” one is a federal government “employee.”This is typically done by executing a valid Form W‑4.

However, as discussed above, Form
W‑4 is not mandatory for workers who are not “employed” by the
federal government.Corporations chartered
by the 50 States of the Union are technically “foreign”
corporations with respect to the IRC;they are decidedly not the federal government, and
should not be regarded “as if” they are the federal government,
particularly when they were never created by any Act of
Congress.

Moreover, the Indiana Supreme
Court has ruled that Congress can only create a
corporation in its capacity as the Legislature for the federal
zone.Such corporations are the only “domestic”
corporations under the pertinent federal laws.This writer’s essay entitled “A
Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions” clarifies this
important distinction between “foreign” and “domestic”
corporations in simple, straightforward language.

If Congress were authorized to
create national corporations, such a questionable
authority would invade States’ rights reserved to them by the
Tenth Amendment, namely, the right to charter their own domestic
corporations.The repeal of
Prohibition left the
Tenth Amendment unqualified.See the
Constantine case supra.

For purposes of the IRC, the term
“employer” refers only to federal government agencies,
and an “employee” is a person who works for such an “employer”.

16.Why
does IRS Form 1040 not require a Notary Public to
notarize a taxpayer’s signature?

Answer:This
question is one of the fastest ways to unravel the fraudulent
nature of federal income taxes.At 28 U.S.C.
section1746,
Congress authorized written verifications to be executed under
penalty of perjury without the need for a Notary Public,
i.e. to witness one’s signature.

This statute identifies two
different formats for such written verifications:(1) those executed outside the “United States” and
(2) those executed inside the “United States”.These two formats correspond to sections 1746(1) and
1746(2), respectively.

What is extremely revealing in
this statute is the format for verifications executed “outside
the United States”.In this latter format,
the statute adds the qualifying phrase “under the laws of the
United States of America”.

Clearly, the terms “United
States” and “United States of America” are both
used in this same statute.They are not
one and the same.The former refers to the
federal government -- in the
U.S. Constitution and throughout most federal statutes.The latter refers to the 50 States that are united by,
and under, the U.S. Constitution.28
U.S.C. 1746 is the only federal statute in all of
Title 28 of
the United States Code that utilizes the term “United States of
America”, as such.

It is painfully if not immediately
obvious, then, that verifications made under penalty of perjury
are outside the “United States” (read “the federal
zone”) if and when they are executed inside the 50 States
of the Union (read “the State zone”).

Likewise, verifications made under
penalty of perjury are outside the 50 States of the
Union, if and when they are executed inside the “United
States”.

The format for signatures on Form
1040 is the one for verifications made inside the
United States (federal zone) and outside the
United States of America (State zone).

17.Does
the term “United States” have multiple legal meanings
and, if so, what are they?

Answer:Yes.The term has several meanings. The term "United
States" may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be
merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to
that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It
may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United
States extends, or [3]it may be the collective
name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution.
See Hooven & Allison Co. v.
Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
[bold emphasis, brackets and numbers added for clarity].

This is the very same
definition that is found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth
Edition. The second of these three meanings refers to the federal
zone and to Congress only when it is legislating in its
municipal capacity. For example, Congress is legislating in its
municipal capacity whenever it creates a federal corporation, like
the United States Postal Service.

It is terribly revealing
of the manifold frauds discussed in these Answers, that the
definition of “United States” has now been removed
from the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary.

18.Is the
term “income” defined in the IRC and, if not, where is it
defined?

Answer:The
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that the term
“income” is not defined anywhere in the IRC:
“The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal
Revenue Code.” U.S. v. Ballard, 535
F.2d 400, 404 (8th Circuit,
1976).

Moreover, in Mark
Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber,
252 U.S. 189 (1920),
the high Court told Congress it could not legislate any
definition of “income” because that term was believed to be in
the U.S. Constitution. The
Eisner
case was predicated on the ratification of the
16th amendment, which would have introduced the
term “income” into the
U.S. Constitution for the very first time (but only
if that amendment had been properly ratified).

In Merchant's Loan
& Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255
U.S. 509 (1921),
the high Court defined “income” to mean the profit or gain
derived from corporate activities. In that instance, the tax is
a lawful excise tax imposed upon the corporate privilege of
limited liability, i.e. the liabilities of a corporation
do not reach its officers, employees, directors or stockholders.

19.What
is municipal law, and are the IRC’s income tax provisions
municipal law, or not?

Answer:Yes.The IRC’s income tax provisions are municipal law.
Municipal law is law that is enacted to govern the
internal affairs of a sovereign State;in legal circles, it is also known as Private
International Law.Under American Law, it
has a much wider meaning than the ordinances enacted by
the governing body of a municipality, i.e. city council
or county board of supervisors.In fact,
American legal encyclopedias define “municipal” to mean
“internal”, and for this reason alone, the Internal
Revenue Code is really a Municipal Revenue Code.

A mountain of additional evidence
has now been assembled and published in the book “The
Federal Zone” to prove that the IRC’s income tax provisions
are municipal law.

One of the most famous pieces of
evidence is a
letter from a Connecticut Congresswoman, summarizing the
advice of legal experts employed by the Congressional Research
Service and the Legislative Counsel.Their
advice confirmed that the meaning of “State” at IRC section
3121(e)
is restricted to the named territories and possessions of
D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico.

In other words, the term “State”
in that statute, and in all similar federal statutes, includes
ONLY the places expressly named, and no more.

20.What
does it mean if my State is not mentioned in any of the
federal income tax statutes?

The general rule is that federal
government powers must be expressed and enumerated.For example, the
U.S. Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers.If a power is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution,
then Congress does not have any authority to exercise
that power.This rule is tersely expressed
in the
Ninth Amendment, in the
Bill of Rights.

If California is not mentioned in
any of the federal income tax statutes, then those
statutes have no force or effect within that State.This is also true of all 50 States.

Strictly speaking, the omission or
exclusion of anyone or any thing from a federal statute can be
used to infer that the omission or exclusion was intentional
by Congress.In Latin, this is tersely
stated as follows:
Inclusiouniusestexclusio
alterius.In English, this phrase
is literally translated:Inclusion of
one thing is the exclusion of all other things [that are
not mentioned].This phrase can be
found in any edition of Black’s Law Dictionary;it is a maxim of statutory construction.

The many different
definitions of the term “State” that are found in federal laws
are intentionally written to appear as if they include
the 50 States PLUS the other places mentioned.As the
legal
experts in Congress have now confirmed, this is NOT
the correct way to interpret, or to construct, these statutes.

If a place is not mentioned, every
American may correctly infer that the omission of that place
from a federal statute was an intentional act of
Congress.Whenever it wants to do so,
Congress knows how to define the term “United States” to mean
the 50 States of the Union.See IRC section
4612(a)(4)(A).

21.In
what other ways is the IRC deliberately vague, and what are the
real implications for the average American?

There are numerous other ways in
which the IRC
is deliberately vague.The absence of any
legal definition for the term “income” is a classic deception.The IRS enforces the Code as a tax on everything that
“comes in,” but nothing could be further from the truth.“Income” is decidedly NOT everything that “comes in.”

More importantly, the fact that
this vagueness is deliberate is sufficient grounds for
concluding that the entire Code is null, void and
unconstitutional, for violating our fundamental Right to know
the nature and cause of any accusation, as guaranteed by the
Sixth Amendment in the
Bill of Rights.

Whether the vagueness is
deliberate or not, any statute is unconstitutionally void
if it is vague.If a statute is void for
vagueness, the situation is the same as if it had never
been enacted at all, and for this reason it can be ignored
entirely.

22.Has
Title 26 of
the United States Code (“U.S.C.”) ever been enacted into
positive law, and what are the legal implications if Title 26
has not been enacted into positive law?

Answer:No.Another, less obvious case of deliberate deception is the
statute at IRC section
7851(a)(6)(A),
where it states that the provisions of
subtitle
F shall take effect on the day after the date of
enactment of “this title”.Because the term
“this title” is not defined anywhere in the IRC, least of
all in the section dedicated to definitions, one is forced to
look elsewhere for its meaning, or to derive its meaning from
context.

Throughout
Title 28 of
the United States Code -- the laws which govern all the federal
courts -- the term “this title” clearly refers to Title 28.This fact would tend to support a conclusion that “this
title”, as that term is used in the IRC, refers to Title 26 of
the United States Code.However,
Title 26 has
never been enacted into positive law, as such.

Even though all federal judges may
know the secret meaning of “this title”, they are men and women
of UNcommon
intelligence.The U.S. Supreme Court’s test
for vagueness is violated whenever men and women of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at the meaning and
differ as to the application of a vague statute.See Connallyet al. v. General Construction Co.,
269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926).
Thus, federal judges are applying the wrong test for vagueness.

Accordingly, the provisions of
subtitle
F have never taken effect.(“F” is for
enForcement!)This subtitle contains all of the enforcement
statutes of the
IRC, e.g. filing requirements, penalties for failure
to file and tax evasion, grants of court jurisdiction over
liens, levies and seizures, summons enforcement and so on.

In other words, the
IRC is a big
pile of Code without any teeth;as such, it can impose no legal obligations upon
anyone, not even people with dentures!

23.What
federal courts are authorized to prosecute income tax crimes?

This question must be addressed in
view of the Answer to
Question 22 above.Although it may
appear that certain statutes in the
IRC grant
original jurisdiction to federal district courts, to institute
prosecutions of income tax crimes, none of the statutes found in
subtitle
F has ever taken effect.For this
reason, those statutes do not authorize the federal courts to do
anything at all.As always,
appearances can be very deceiving.Remember
the Wizard of Oz or the mad tea party of Alice in
Wonderland?

On the other hand, the federal
criminal Code at
Title 18, U.S.C., does grant general authority to the
District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”)
to prosecute violations of the statutes found in that Code.See
18
U.S.C. 3231.

It is very important to appreciate
the fact that these courts are not the same as the United States
District Courts (“USDC”).The DCUS are constitutional courts that originate
in
Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
The
USDC are territorial tribunals, or legislative
courts, that originate in
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution,
also known as the Territory Clause.

This author’s
OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit on behalf of the
Defendant in
USA v.
Gilbertson cites numerous court cases that have already
clarified the all important distinction between these two
classes of federal district courts.For
example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922),
the high Court held that the USDC belongs in the federal
Territories.This author’s
OPENING
BRIEF to the Ninth Circuit in
Mitchell v.
AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. develops this theme in
even greater detail;
begin reading at section “7(e)”.

The
USDC, as such, appear to lack any lawful authorities
to prosecute income tax crimes.The USDC are
legislative tribunals where summary proceedings
dominate.

24.Are
federal judges required to pay income taxes on their pay, and
what are the real implications if they do pay
taxes on their pay?

Answer:No.Federal judges who are appointed to preside on the
District Courts of the United States –- the
Article IIIconstitutional courts –- are immune
from any taxation of their pay, by constitutional mandate.

The fact that all federal judges
are currently paying taxes on their pay is proof of undue
influence by the IRS, posing as a duly authorized agency of the
Executive Branch.See Evans v. Gore,
253 U.S. 245 (1920)

Even if the IRS were a
lawful bureau or department within the
U.S. Department of the Treasury (which they are NOT), the
existence of undue influence by the Executive Branch would
violate the fundamental principle of Separation of Powers.This principle, in theory, keeps the 3 branches of the
federal government confined to their respective areas, and
prevents any one branch from usurping the lawful powers that
rightly belong to the other two branches.

The Separation of Powers principle
is succinctly defined in Williams v. United States, 289
U.S. 553 (1933);however, in that decision the Supreme Court erred by
defining “Party” to mean only Plaintiffs in
Article III, contrary to the definition of “Party”
that is found in
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856).

The federal judiciary,
contemplated by the organic
U.S. Constitution, was intended to be independent and
unbiased.These two qualities are the
essence, or sine qua non of judicial power, i.e.
without which there is nothing.Undue
influence obviously violates these two qualities.See Evans v. Goresupra.

In Lord v.
Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167,
169 (1965), the federal judge in that case was honest enough to
admit, in his published opinion, that federal judges
routinely rule in favor of the IRS, because they fear the
retaliation that might result from ruling against the IRS.There you have it, from the horse’s mouth!

In front of a class of law
students at the University of Arizona in January of 1997, Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist openly admitted that all
federal judges are currently paying taxes on their judicial pay.This writer was an eyewitness to that
statement by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court -–
the highest Court in the land.

Thus, all federal judges are now
material witnesses to the practice of concealing the
Withholding Exemption Certificate from them, when they were
first hired as “employees” of the federal judiciary.As material witnesses, they are thereby disqualified from
presiding on all federal income tax cases.

Answer:No.Federal grand juries cannot issue valid indictments
against illegal tax protesters.Protest has
never been illegal in America, because the
First Amendment guarantees our fundamental Right to express
our objections to any government actions, in written and in
spoken words.

Strictly speaking, the term
“illegal” cannot modify the noun “protesters” because to do so
would constitute a violation of the
First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, one of the most
magnificent constitutional provisions ever written.

Accordingly, for the term “illegal
tax protester” to survive this obvious constitutional challenge,
the term “illegal” must modify the noun “tax”.An illegal tax protester is, therefore, someone who is
protesting an illegal tax.Such an act of
protest is protected by the
First Amendment, and cannot be a crime.

Protest is also recognized and
honored by the
Uniform
Commercial Code;the
phrases “under protest” and “without prejudice” are sufficient
to reserve all of one’s fundamental Rights at law.See
U.C.C.
1-207 (UCCA 1207 in California).

By the way, the federal U.C.C. is
also
municipal law.See the Answer to
Question 19 above, and 77 Stat. 630, P.L. 88‑243,
December 30, 1963 (one month after
President John F. Kennedy was murdered).

26.Do IRS
agents ever tamper with federal grand juries, and how is this
routinely done?

Answer:Yes.IRS agents routinely tamper with federal grand juries,
most often by misrepresenting themselves, under oath, as
lawful employees and “Special Agents” of the federal government,
and by misrepresenting the provisions of
subtitle
F as having any legal force or effect.Such false representations of fact violate Section 43(a)
of the Lanham Act, uncodified at
15
U.S.C. 1125(a).(Title
15 of the United States Code has not been enacted into
positive law either.)

They tamper with grand juries by
acting as if “income” is everything that “comes in”, when there
is no such definition anywhere in the IRC.Such false descriptions of fact also violate Section
43(a) of the
Lanham
Act.

They tamper with grand juries by
presenting documentary evidence which they had no authority to
acquire, in the first instance, such as bank records.Bank signature cards do not constitute competent waivers
of their customers’ fundamental Rights to privacy, as secured by
the
Fourth Amendment.The high standard for
waivers of fundamental Rights was established by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742,
748 (1970).

IRS agents tamper with grand
juries by creating and maintaining the false and
fraudulent pretenses that the
IRC is not
vague, or that the income tax provisions have any legal force or
effect inside the 50 States of the Union, when those provisions
do not.

These are all forms of perjury, as
well, and possibly also misprision of perjury by omission,
i.e. serious federal offenses.

Finally, there is ample evidence
that IRS agents bribe U.S. Attorneys, federal judges, and even
the Office of the President with huge
kickbacks, every time a criminal indictment is issued by a
federal grand jury against an illegal tax protester.(See the Answer to
Question 25 above.)These kick‑backs
range from $25,000 to $35,000 in CASH!They
also violate the
Anti-Kickback Act of 1986, which penalizes the payment of
kickbacks from federal government subcontractors.See
41 U.S.C.
51et seq.

As a trust domiciled in
Puerto Rico, the IRS is, without a doubt, a federal
government subcontractor that is subject to this Act.See
31
U.S.C. 1321(a)(62).The systematic and premeditated pattern of racketeering
by IRS employees also establishes probable cause to dismantle
the IRS permanently for violating the
Sherman
Antitrust Act, first enacted in the year 1890 A.D.See 26 Stat. 209 (1890) (uncodified
at 15
U.S.C. 1
et seq.)

27.What
is “The Kickback Racket,” and where can I find evidence of its
existence?

The evidence of this “kickback
racket” was first discovered in a table of delegation
orders, on a page within the Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM”) --
the internal policy and procedure manual for all IRS employees.

Subsequently, this writer
submitted a lawful
request,
under the
Freedom of Information Act, for a certified list of all
payments that had ever been made under color of these delegation
orders in the IRM.Mr. Mark L.
Zolton, a tax law specialist within
the Internal Revenue Service,
responded on IRS letterhead, transmitted via U.S.
Mail, that few records existed for
these “awards” because most of them were paid in cash!

When this evidence was properly
presented to a federal judge, who had been asked to enforce a
federal grand jury subpoena against a small business in Arizona,
he ended up obstructing all 28 pieces of U.S. Mail we had
transmitted to that grand jury.

Obstruction of correspondence is a
serious federal offense, and federal judges have no authority
whatsoever to intercept U.S. Mail.See
18
U.S.C. 1702.

Obviously, the federal judge --
John M.
Roll -- did NOT want the grand jury in that case to know
anything about these kickbacks.They
found out anyway, because of the
manner
in which this writer defended that small business, as its Vice
President for Legal Affairs.

28.Can
the IRS levy bank accounts without a valid court order?

Answer:No.The
Fifth Amendment prohibits all deprivations of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law.Due Process of Law is another honored and well
developed feature of American constitutional practice.Put simply, it requires Notice and Hearing before any
property can be seized by any federal government employees,
agents, departments or agencies.

A levy against a bank account is a
forced seizure of property, i.e. the funds on deposit in
that account.No such seizure can occur
unless due process of law has first run its course.This means notice, hearing, and deliberate adjudication
of all the pertinent issues of law and fact.

Only after
this process has run its proper or “due” course, can a valid
court order be issued.The holding in
U.S. v. O’Dell,
160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir.
1947), makes it very clear that the IRS can only levy a bank
account after first obtaining a Warrant of
Distraint, or court ORDER.And, of
course, no court ORDER could ever be obtained unless all
affected Parties had first enjoyed their “day in court.”

29.Do
federal income tax revenues pay for any government services and,
if so, which government services are funded by federal income
taxes?

Answer:No.The money trail is very difficult to follow, in this
instance, because the IRS is technically a trust with a
domicile in
Puerto Rico.See
31
U.S.C. 1321(a)(62).As such, their records are protected by laws which
guarantee the privacy of trust records within that territorial
jurisdiction, provided that the trust is not also violating the
Sherman
Antitrust Act.

All evidence indicates that they
are a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage
in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation
of
18
U.S.C. 1951 and
1961et seq.

They appear to be laundering huge
sums of money into foreign banks, mostly in Europe, and quite
possibly into the Vatican.See the national
policy on money laundering at 31
U.S.C. 5341.

The final report of the Grace
Commission, convened under President Ronald Reagan, quietly
admitted that none of the funds they collect from federal income
taxes goes to pay for any federal government services.The Grace Commission found that those funds were being
used to pay for interest on the federal debt, and income
transfer payments to beneficiaries of entitlement programs like
federal pension plans.

30.How
can the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)
help me to answer other key tax questions?

The availability of correct
information about federal government operations is fundamental
to maintaining the freedom of the American People.The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”),
at 5
U.S.C. 552
et seq., was intended to make government
documents available with a minimal amount of effort by the
People.

As long as a document is not
protected by one of the reasonable exemptions itemized in the
FOIA,
a requester need only submit a brief letter to the agency having
custody of the requested document(s).If the requested document is not produced
within 20 working days (excluding weekends and federal
holidays), the requester need only prepare a single appeal
letter.

If the requested document is not
produced within another 20 working days after the date of the
appeal letter, the requester is automatically allowed to
petition a District Court of the United States (Article
IIIDCUS,
not the
Article IV
USDC) -- to compel production of the requested
document, and judicially to enjoin the improper
withholding of same.See
5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(B).
The general rule is that statutes conferring original
jurisdiction on federal district courts must be strictly
construed.

This writer has pioneered the
application of the
FOIA
to request certified copies of statutes and regulations which
should exist, but do not exist.A
typical request anyone can make, to which the U.S. Treasury has
now fallen totally silent, is for a certified copy of all
statutes which create a specific liability for taxes imposed by
subtitle
A of the IRC.For example, see the
FOIA request that this writer prepared for author Lynne
Meredith.

Of course, by now we already know
the answer to this question, before asking it.(Good lawyers always know the answers to their questions,
before asking them.)

It should also be clear that such
a FOIA request should not be directed to the IRS, because
they are not an “agency” as that term is defined at
5 U.S.C.
551(1)(C).Address it instead to the
Disclosure Officer, Disclosure Services, Room 1054-MT, U.S.
Department of the Treasury, Washington 20220, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, USA.This is the format for
“foreign” addresses, as explained in USPS Publication
#221.

As James Madison once wrote, “A
popular government without popular information or the means of
acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a
Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both.
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean
to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power
knowledge gives."

31.Where
can I find more information, and still protect my
privacy?

There are many civic organizations
throughout America who have dedicated their precious time and
energy to acquire and disseminate widely these documented truths
about the Internal Revenue Service and the
Internal Revenue
Code.

The Internet’s World Wide Web
(“www”) is perhaps the best single source of information (and
disinformation) about the IRS, and the major problems now
confirmed in the IRC and in the mountains of related policies,
procedures, practices, customs, rules, regulations, forms and
schedules.

Learn to become a sophisticated
consumer of information, and the knowledge you seek will be
yours to keep and share -- with those you love and endeavor to
free from this terrible plague that persists in America.

Good luck, and may God bless your
earnest endeavors to ensure the blessings of Liberty for
ourselves and our Posterity, as stated in the Preamble to the
U.S. Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence.

* * *

To order additional certified and
embossed copies of this document, please send $30.00 in cash or
blank U.S. Postal Money Order to:

Forwarding Agent

501 W. Broadway #A-332

San Diego 92101

CALIFORNIA, USA

A “blank” U.S. Postal Money Order
leaves the “PAY TO” line blank, permitting us to negotiate it
freely.You may, of course, complete the
other half;this
allows you to obtain a photocopy of the cancelled money order
from the U.S. Postal Service
without the need for a court order.

As the Undersigned, I hereby
verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the
United States of America, without the “United States”
(federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws
is true and correct, according to the best of My current
information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to
28
U.S.C. 1746(1).See the
Supremacy Clause for Constitutional authority.

This
page may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice
issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.